WASHINGTON  Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said Thursday that he and top military commanders felt very strongly that deploying American forces to defend against the fatal attack last month on the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, was too risky because they did not have a clear picture of what was happening on the ground.

Panetta has now "tied the noose" around this Administration in a way that will prove difficult if not impossible to slip out of before getting "hung" by the events of Benghazi, but more specifically by their handling of the reporting to the American people and the world about those events.

If we are to believe Panetta, they are now saying that, in real time, they were too concerned about the situation on the ground to allow putting troops into harms way. This is a position that can be defended by itself (although it shows too much cowardice in my opinion but at least it is defensible). The problem is this: this now cannot in any way, shape, or form square with the fact that three days later (accepting the administration's timeline) they decide to blame this on a video. That decision was not a "fog of war" decision. It does not fall into the "Monday morning quarterbacking" arena as Panetta invoked. The decision to blame this on a video and spontaneous demonstrations, in a very coordinated and persistent (over two weeks) manner, to go on multiple talk shows, late night shows, and to the UN, and to produce an ad for Arab TV blame it on a video, now puts the WH is an untenable position. This is not incompetence. This is deceit. There is no way to spin this, if Panetta is to be believed that they were concerned about engaging what was going on at the consulate.

Whether or not this was handled well, the fear of a “Blackhawk Down” scenario could easily have been on someone’s mind. If you haven’t seen that movie, you should, it is really scary, and I have a son in Afghanistan. If would sure make me think twice before committing more troops.

Whether or not this was handled well, the fear of a “Blackhawk Down” scenario could easily have been on someone’s mind. If you haven’t seen that movie, you should, it is really scary, and I have a son in Afghanistan. If would sure make me think twice before committing more troops.

Risk? Risk to what? Risk that 4 Americans might not be killed and Obama’s buttheaded insistence that there will be no more 9/11 anniversary terror outbreaks because he eradicated all terrorism when he personally strode in that hovel in Pakistan and drilled Osama Bin Laden in the eye?

The risk was that if these 4 were saved that somebody somewhere might think that maybe what Obama said isn’t true?

The MSM that is hiding this now are nothing more than the equivalent of Al-Quada terrorists. They should be lined up outside their cushy offices and summarily executed forthwith. Nothing less.

Moosechelle said that for the first time she was proud of her country.
I can say that for the first time I am not proud of my country. At least the way it is being run (overun) by these marxists.
Unfortunately our complicit so called press will let them slide.

I’m sorry that you have a son in Afghanistan now effectively abandoned by his President and his henchmen/women with ridiculous rules of engagement, nebulous plans and neglect.

“Blackhawk Down” was the fault of Bill Clinton and the media. The American Press met the shore ‘assault’ on Mogdishu in a story book ‘invasion story’. Clinton later refused to send the assets requested (M-1 Abrahms tanks, etc.) to protect our troops. The same way Obama deserted his charges in Libya and Bengazi.

Scenarios come and go. When they are tinted by BS politics is when our sons and daughters get killed. I sincerely hope your son returns home from where he is unscathed.

The right thing to do is the ‘right thing’ — save Americans where you have the ability to do so, PERIOD!

The ex-SEALs were certainly capable of doing a threat assessment. Delta Force was two hours away! THey were doing training exercises in Europe. They really feel a group of locals with AKs could pose a threat to the most elite fighting unit we’ve got??

Total BS. Obama decided it was politically risky to have a failed rescue mission. They had the larger context of Cairo and other embassies facing protests. They LIED.

Obama lied six times to the UN blaming the video. Hillary lied to the father of one of the fallen. Lies lies lies.

Obama met at 5 pm with Panetta and made the call to NOT intervene.

His statement to the Denver reporter (nice to see there are a few left) was telling. He said his order was to intervene, then investigate, then hold the guilty accountable.

If the President ordered something to be done, who didn’t carry out his order?

Looks like they are setting up the Admiral (see ABC news story) to the fall guy. Gen Ham is also out.

Panetta said Thursday ... it was too risky because they did not have a clear picture of what was happening on the ground.IIRC from another interview, Panetta also also said they were wary of sending troops into an ambush.How many sponteneous protests come complete with heavy weapons AND an ambush plan?

Whether or not this was handled well, the fear of a Blackhawk Down scenario could easily have been on someones mind. If you havent seen that movie, you should, it is really scary, and I have a son in Afghanistan. If would sure make me think twice before committing more troops.

gleeaiken, you are missing my point. If we grant your point, and while I do not agree with it I certainly understand the reluctance, that the Admin was too concerned about safety in this situation of troops, then this totally cuts the knees off of why you would start 3 days later and for two weeks saying that this was a spontaneous demonstration sparked by a video when you knew it wasn't. In fact, you are using the fact now that you knew it wasn't to justify your position not to send in troops. Deceit.

26
posted on 10/28/2012 9:26:55 AM PDT
by Tennessean4Bush
(An optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist fears this is true.)

What ever happened to an event like this provoking an evening, televised speech made by the President of the United States of America? There has been plenty of time for the White House or the State Department to come up with an official version of what happened....complete with charts. There is even room for the president to say, “I made this decision because....”.

How many sponteneous protests come complete with heavy weapons AND an ambush plan?

Bingo! If they knew it was sophisticated, or at least were concerned that it was, how could they decide three days later to blame it on a spontaneous demonstration and continue that blame for two more weeks?

32
posted on 10/28/2012 9:29:09 AM PDT
by Tennessean4Bush
(An optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist fears this is true.)

Those of us on this site are proud of the brave Americans that ths country has produced, who went into harm’s way to try to save fellow Americans, and who paid the ultimate price.

No matter what damage Obama has tried to inflict on this nation, he has not destroyed our pride in our military and in our country.

And believe me, he has tried his hardest. He and his ilk will never stop trying, so no matter how the election turns out, we must remain vigilant. Evil is hiding everywhere just looking for another way to destroy us.

I almost never write like this, but to paraphrase the mooch, I HAVE ALWAYS been proud of my country, and no treasonous cowards in DC can change that.

Risk aversion has been the singular characteristic of military policy since at least Mogadishu and arguably since our withdrawal from Vietnam. But, the risk has not been defined in military terms at all. This risk has been wholly political and largely short term political risk. The Democrats have been the leader of the pack in this regard, but the Republicans have not been immune to this disease.

Panetta has given us the reason for Obama’s decisions that directly led to this disaster: risk to the reelection of Barack Obama, President of the United States. They care about nothing else and are willing to sacrifice lives, world standing, and the future of the country for political victory.

Remember, Obama has taken great pride in saying that Libya was liberated without American blood being shed. Obama did not want potential voters to wake up to our uniformed military being KIA.

So, DOD assets were told to stand down as CIA subcontractors, whose presence could be concealed, were tasked with extracting diplomatic assets from the Mission. Also, those operators were familiar with the battlefield and were leveraged with local friendly militia.

As the battlefield was so unshaped and on/off and populated by hostiles of unknown strength and unknown weapons, this was a reasonable tactical choice anyway.

Other rapid response units that could have gotten there would have been too little and too late.

General Ham and Africom, were frustrated that in this theater of their responsibility, they were not in position to act effectively.

"Whether or not this was handled well, the fear of a Blackhawk Down scenario could easily have been on someones mind."

The "Blackhawk Down" scenario (in 10/93) largely occurred in the first place because the civilian leadership failed to listen to the recommendations of the commanders on the ground. If the administration wanted to truly avoid a "Blackhawk Down" scenario, they would have applied the lessons learned, instead of repeating them.

Risk aversion has been the singular characteristic of military policy since at least Mogadishu and arguably since our withdrawal from Vietnam.

This is the argument Panetta is hoping everyone will have, though. He is hoping that his comments will now get everyone on the conservative side up in a tizzy saying "Damn the risk, we should have done something!" and the liberal side in a counter argument consistent with their historical dove-like posture. But this argument is a distraction. Panetta has admitted that either they knew it was a sophisticated attack or they were not sure that it was not a sophisticated attack. If that is the case, then they CANNOT come out three days later and say for the next two weeks that they know what caused it and it is a video that sparked a spontaneous demonstration!

44
posted on 10/28/2012 9:43:26 AM PDT
by Tennessean4Bush
(An optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist fears this is true.)

If we are to believe Panetta, they are now saying that, in real time, they were too concerned about the situation on the ground to allow putting troops into harms way.

It wasn't too risky for armed drones or C-130 gunships. The only real risk was collateral damage to innocent Libya citizens and the impact it would have on bilateral relations.

For most of us, the security of Americans under Obama's command outweighed any other perceived risks. There were 30 American lives at stake. Panetta is full of crap and he couldn't make the final decision anyway.

I found this great article which details how the consulate staff came under attack, how they were fighting for their lives, and details when Woods and his team showed up to help evacuate the consulate.

All of the information provided jives with the details now emerging from FOXNews.

Unfortunately failure to send correct assets is and equal politician flaw. My son was in Gulf War I, in Saudi Arabia a week after the Kuwait invasion by SH. He was there 8 months and took part in the assault into Iraq. In December 2002 I asked him how many troops he felt should be sent in by Bush. He said 450,000. At the time Shinsecki was in the process of being fired for arguing we should have over 300,000. Then after a year of a big mess in Iraq, Bremmer said we should have had 1/2 million. Siiigh!!

Now that my son is in Afghanistan AGAIN (spent 8 months there in 2006), I am really pixxed that we didn’t finish the job in Afghanistan instead of the Iraq side trip.

All politicians have their own agenda. We know Obama’s, but I fear that Romney is too eager to bloody the nose of Russia (”our number one enemy”) and Iran. My son has two years to go on his 20, and I pray he makes it out in one piece.

I also favor keeping a strong military, but while I worry about what some demobilization will do to employment figures, a also worry about what political overspending will do to the economy and paying down the debt. To say that I am between Iraq and a hard place is an understandment.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.